Primary Navigation

RE: [SACC-L] NYT on embedded anthropology

As Ann Popplestone shared her experiential context of her husband having served and being injured requiring serious surgery, I also have altered my views

Message 1 of 16
, Oct 30, 2007

0 Attachment

As Ann Popplestone shared her experiential context of her husband having
served and being injured requiring serious surgery, I also have altered
my views having dealt with a close friend returning from combat, wounded
and sharing his experiences. We all have perspectives that are
constructed by our social experience and we are not just some kind of
abstracted professional maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity
while the world turns. I thought that we were indeed in a postmodern
world with a profession, anthropology, that realizes that engaging in
embedded fieldwork requires a complex strategic plan of ACTION that
limits our impact but never pretends that we are not involved in a
living, changing community. Do you really think that an anthropologist
embedded in fieldwork within a Nazi or Khmer Rouge dominated community
could avoid making choices to help save lives and limbs?? Do we simply
ignore doing fieldwork in areas under conflict because we would "get our
ethical hands dirty"? (which is obviously what Ann meant) I quit a
consultant firm during Viet Nam because we were asked to set up a Race
Relations program for the Defense Department, which my partners
eventually did. Instead, I took a job at a community college. Believe
me, the state of Ohio contract that I work under does more ethical harm
to my professional soul than Admiral Zumwalt's excellent Race Relations
program. Was I right to not work to make soldiers less racist and thus
more efficient killers? (my reasoning at the time) I now do not think
so.

Such anthropologists are engaged not simply in "dirtying their hands"
while doing good things in a culturally informed way; they are serving
the strategies, tactics and ultimate goals of a side in a war. They are
helping to fight a war. They aren't with a group of blue-helmeted
peacekeepers, but with "our side" that is ultimately aiming to win over
"their side." This is the fundamental issue that makes them partisan and
mercenary; their cultural sensitivity and subsequent ability to "lighten
things up" (to make the war campaigns a little more culturally
sensitive?) makes them no less so. In fact it makes the discipline
itself sound fundamentally naive, at best, and duplicitous at worst, if
we suggest that we are simply just "getting our hands a little dirty"
while making peace somehow. Instead we are abandoning our integrity as a
discipline, while making war.

In an ideal world, I would certainly agree that this adventure/disaster
should not have started and nobody should be there.

I do have to ask: A professional anthropologist in the AO (area of
operations) might be able to keep soldiers (with a wide range of
educational backgrounds and not much time to peruse the literature
before going out on patrol) from pissing off people even more. They
might do a better job of introducing things like vaccinations and
pre-natal care. They might even keep some candidates from the
Revitalization Movement Run Amok that motivates suicide
bombers......Isn't protecting lives and enhancing quality of life with
our skills worth risking dirtying our hands ?

The anthropologists in this "human terrain project" (...even the very
title should grate on our professional nerves!) not only wear desert
combat uniforms, but also carry guns. And they are working on a side in
a war. That is the bottom line. If you sign up to be a soldier, there is
no question what your intentions are or whose "side you are on." Many of
our community college students themselves are in this situation, in and
out of service over decades, from on war situation to another. None of
them pretends they are neutral and none of them is without an opinion
about what they do. But also, none of them are part of a profession that
has at its foundation a set of principles on which they need to build
the trust and respect of any people with whom they work.

As you will note in all of my own comments on this situation, I am not
personally or professionally arguing for or against the merits of this
and other wars as the basis for which anthropologists should or should
not participate in any given project. I am making the point that taking
the side in any such state-run military agenda is itself a formula for
undermining the principles on which our discipline relies for its
integrity and meaning. And it is amazing in the process to see how
easily we can be drawn into the rationalization of such participation.

I don't really think it is an apt argument that anthropologists help
"our soldiers" become more "culturally sensitive," or that
anthropologists might somehow make what you call "this mess" in Iraq (or
anywhere else) "a little better." It is, as I have suggested before,
"warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology!" And
I hardly think that we in the discipline should settle for such
accomodation or rationalization.

I've been watching the arguments about anthropologists being attached to
military units with VERY mixed feelings.

Full disclosure: My husband is a disabled Iraq war vet. He enlisted
prior to 9/11 of his own free will and swore "to defend the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Not a word about
making the world safe for Haliburton.

He and the other ground pounders enlisted with the expectation that
they would be called on to defend those who cannot defend themselves:
prevent massacres in Bosnia, keep a lid on Kim Jong Il etc.

It took them less than a month to realize that the invasion of
Afghanistan was a mis-managed screw-up (They have more colorful terms,
let me assure you). It took even less time to realize that the
"mission" in Iraq was completely bogus and that the best they could hope
for was to survive and get out.

The ground troops remain and try to keep one another alive. Those that
are well-led also try to protect the Iraqis in their areas that are not
involved in the civil war that has developed. Those that have
incompetent/dishonest NCOs and officers sometimes do things that range
from culturally insensitive to homicidal and are a disgrace to their
services and their country.

Would it have been better if the US had not gone into Iraq? Almost
certainly. Now that the mess exists can things be made at least a
little better by having anthropologists around to try to increase
cultural communication and minimize cross-cultural conflicts? Probably.
The same thing applies to the medical personnel, water sanitation
people, agricultural assistance folks etc.

Does our presence increase the credibility of the invasion with much of
anybody in the region? Debatable. The conventional wisdom among Iraq
war vets was that 25% of the Iraqis had it really good under Saddam and
won't care for Americans no matter what we do. 25% had it really bad
under Saddam and are happy to have anything else. 25% are going to
profiteer from the situation as long as possible. And 25% are just
trying not to get their heads blown off.

If we (anthropologists) decide not to dirty our reputations by being
there will anybody but us care? Debatable.

What is the "right" answer? We will probably never know for sure. But
I really like that the discussion is going on.

BTW: the anthropologists are almost certainly wearing "fatigues" (more
correctly: Desert Combat Uniforms) for the same reason as everyone
else: to keep from being a good target and getting shot!

This op-ed piece reveals exactly what I was afraid of...having
anthropologists allied with the occupying forces (and I object to this
no
matter WHO the occupying forces are) instructing the military leaders
how to
"conduct nonlethal missions." What, exactly, is the purpose for this?
(And
why the hell is an anthropologist wearing military fatigues?) If the
Pentagon were really concerned with cultural relativism (and they're
revealed countless times over the years that they're not), hell, if the
administration in power (and again, WHATEVER administration is in power)

were truly concerned with cultural relativism, they'd have consulted
with
anthropologists to gain a more nuanced view of other societies around
the
world. Their policies would be informed policies, not "go in and bomb
the
hell out of them and impose our governmental practices on them."
I also wonder if the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is really
anti-soldier. I have a sneaking suspicion it's more anti-manipulation of

the anthropological field for colonialist purposes.
FYI -- I watched the PBS show last Tuesday night about the escalation
with
Iran -- and was thoroughly shocked (but not surprised) to hear Richard
Armitage state that the most ethnocentric people in the world live in
Iran...talk about irony.
Monica Bellas
Cerritos College

>Muslim nations in an effort to make the world a safer place?
>
>A few weeks ago this newspaper reported on an experimental Pentagon
>"human terrain" program to embed anthropologists in combat units in

Iraq

>and Afghanistan. It featured two military anthropologists: Tracy (last
>name withheld), a cultural translator viewed by American paratroopers

as

>"a crucial new weapon" in counterinsurgency; and Montgomery McFate, who

>has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to
>convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know

more

>about the local cultural scene.
>
>How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the
>Pentagon's new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of
>Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty
>members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to
>counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in

a

>brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you
>shouldn't support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars
>don't want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or
>pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe

>the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot.
>
>Part of my thinking stems from an interview with Ms. McFate on NPR's
>"Diane Rehm Show" to which I tried to listen with an open mind. My

first

>reaction was to feel let down. It turns out that the anthropologists

are

>not really doing anthropology at all, but are basically hired as
>military tour guides to help counterinsurgency forces accomplish

various

>nonlethal missions.
>
>These anthropological "angels on the shoulder," as Ms. McFate put it,
>offer global positioning advice as soldiers move through poorly
>understood human terrain - telling them when not to cross their legs at

>meetings, how to show respect to leaders, how to arrange a party. They
>use their degrees in cultural anthropology to play the part of Emily
>Post.
>
>More worrisome, it was revealed that Tracy, the mystery anthropologist,

>wears a military uniform and carries a gun during her cultural
>sensitivity missions. This brought to my increasingly skeptical mind

the

>unfortunate image of an angelic anthropologist perched on the shoulder
>of a member of an American counterinsurgency unit who is kicking in the

>door of someone's home in Iraq, while exclaiming, "Hi, we're here from
>the government; we're here to understand you."
>
>Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments,

>sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life

was

>to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense

>of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting
>American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan
>cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on "love
>Thursdays" and do some "hanky-panky." "Stop imposing your values on
>others," was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond
>"don't ask, don't tell," and I found it heartwarming.
>
>I began to imagine an occupying army of moral relativists, enforcing

the

>peace by drawing a lesson from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans lasted

a

>much longer time than the British Empire in part because they had a
>brilliant counterinsurgency strategy. They did not try to impose their
>values on others. Instead, they made room - their famous "millet

system"

>- for cultural pluralism, leaving each ethnic and religious group to
>control its own territory and at liberty to carry forward its
>distinctive way of life.
>
>When the American Anthropological Association holds its annual
>convention in November in Washington, I expect it to become a forum for

>heated expression of political and moral opposition to the war, to the
>Bush administration, to capitalism, to neo-colonialism, and to the
>corrupting influence of the Pentagon and the C.I.A. on professional
>ethics.
>
>Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to support a profession-wide
>military boycott or a public counter-counterinsurgency loyalty oath.

And

>I think it would be unwise for the American Anthropological Association

>to do so at this time.
>
>The real issue for academic anthropologists is not whether the military

>should know more rather than less about other ways of life - of course
>it should know more. The real issue is how our profession is going to
>begin to play a far more significant educational role in the

formulation

>of foreign policy, in the hope that anthropologists won't have to

answer

>some patriotic call late in a sad day to become an armed angel riding
>the shoulder of a misguided American warrior.
>
>Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The sender of this email is different from the email address shown
in the headers. The real sender of this message is:
sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch=qvcc.commnet.edu@...
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yah>
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yah>
oo.com
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yahoo.com>

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The sender of this email is different from the email address shown
in the headers. The real sender of this message is:
sentto-126016-4129-1193699343-blynch=qvcc.commnet.edu@...
oo.com
<mailto:sentto-126016-4129-1193699343-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yahoo.com>

Mark, So we either support anthropological participation with state sponsored warmaking, or we are abstracted professionals maintaining a false sense of aloof

Message 2 of 16
, Oct 30, 2007

0 Attachment

Mark,
So we either support anthropological participation with state sponsored warmaking, or we are abstracted professionals maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity while the world turns. This is how 21st century anthropology rationalizes its contemporary co-opting by dominant political forces, under the banner of postmodern "action" ?

"The emporer has no clothes." This is warmaking. It is a warmaking agenda in which anthropologists have rationalized their participation (desert fatigues, guns and all). It turns the values of "cultural sensitivity" into a suite of weapons of war. It is "warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology."

As Ann Popplestone shared her experiential context of her husband having
served and being injured requiring serious surgery, I also have altered
my views having dealt with a close friend returning from combat, wounded
and sharing his experiences. We all have perspectives that are
constructed by our social experience and we are not just some kind of
abstracted professional maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity
while the world turns. I thought that we were indeed in a postmodern
world with a profession, anthropology, that realizes that engaging in
embedded fieldwork requires a complex strategic plan of ACTION that
limits our impact but never pretends that we are not involved in a
living, changing community. Do you really think that an anthropologist
embedded in fieldwork within a Nazi or Khmer Rouge dominated community
could avoid making choices to help save lives and limbs?? Do we simply
ignore doing fieldwork in areas under conflict because we would "get our
ethical hands dirty"? (which is obviously what Ann meant) I quit a
consultant firm during Viet Nam because we were asked to set up a Race
Relations program for the Defense Department, which my partners
eventually did. Instead, I took a job at a community college. Believe
me, the state of Ohio contract that I work under does more ethical harm
to my professional soul than Admiral Zumwalt's excellent Race Relations
program. Was I right to not work to make soldiers less racist and thus
more efficient killers? (my reasoning at the time) I now do not think
so.

Such anthropologists are engaged not simply in "dirtying their hands"
while doing good things in a culturally informed way; they are serving
the strategies, tactics and ultimate goals of a side in a war. They are
helping to fight a war. They aren't with a group of blue-helmeted
peacekeepers, but with "our side" that is ultimately aiming to win over
"their side." This is the fundamental issue that makes them partisan and
mercenary; their cultural sensitivity and subsequent ability to "lighten
things up" (to make the war campaigns a little more culturally
sensitive?) makes them no less so. In fact it makes the discipline
itself sound fundamentally naive, at best, and duplicitous at worst, if
we suggest that we are simply just "getting our hands a little dirty"
while making peace somehow. Instead we are abandoning our integrity as a
discipline, while making war.

In an ideal world, I would certainly agree that this adventure/disaster
should not have started and nobody should be there.

I do have to ask: A professional anthropologist in the AO (area of
operations) might be able to keep soldiers (with a wide range of
educational backgrounds and not much time to peruse the literature
before going out on patrol) from pissing off people even more. They
might do a better job of introducing things like vaccinations and
pre-natal care. They might even keep some candidates from the
Revitalization Movement Run Amok that motivates suicide
bombers......Isn't protecting lives and enhancing quality of life with
our skills worth risking dirtying our hands ?

The anthropologists in this "human terrain project" (...even the very
title should grate on our professional nerves!) not only wear desert
combat uniforms, but also carry guns. And they are working on a side in
a war. That is the bottom line. If you sign up to be a soldier, there is
no question what your intentions are or whose "side you are on." Many of
our community college students themselves are in this situation, in and
out of service over decades, from on war situation to another. None of
them pretends they are neutral and none of them is without an opinion
about what they do. But also, none of them are part of a profession that
has at its foundation a set of principles on which they need to build
the trust and respect of any people with whom they work.

As you will note in all of my own comments on this situation, I am not
personally or professionally arguing for or against the merits of this
and other wars as the basis for which anthropologists should or should
not participate in any given project. I am making the point that taking
the side in any such state-run military agenda is itself a formula for
undermining the principles on which our discipline relies for its
integrity and meaning. And it is amazing in the process to see how
easily we can be drawn into the rationalization of such participation.

I don't really think it is an apt argument that anthropologists help
"our soldiers" become more "culturally sensitive," or that
anthropologists might somehow make what you call "this mess" in Iraq (or
anywhere else) "a little better." It is, as I have suggested before,
"warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology!" And
I hardly think that we in the discipline should settle for such
accomodation or rationalization.

I've been watching the arguments about anthropologists being attached to
military units with VERY mixed feelings.

Full disclosure: My husband is a disabled Iraq war vet. He enlisted
prior to 9/11 of his own free will and swore "to defend the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Not a word about
making the world safe for Haliburton.

He and the other ground pounders enlisted with the expectation that
they would be called on to defend those who cannot defend themselves:
prevent massacres in Bosnia, keep a lid on Kim Jong Il etc.

It took them less than a month to realize that the invasion of
Afghanistan was a mis-managed screw-up (They have more colorful terms,
let me assure you). It took even less time to realize that the
"mission" in Iraq was completely bogus and that the best they could hope
for was to survive and get out.

The ground troops remain and try to keep one another alive. Those that
are well-led also try to protect the Iraqis in their areas that are not
involved in the civil war that has developed. Those that have
incompetent/dishonest NCOs and officers sometimes do things that range
from culturally insensitive to homicidal and are a disgrace to their
services and their country.

Would it have been better if the US had not gone into Iraq? Almost
certainly. Now that the mess exists can things be made at least a
little better by having anthropologists around to try to increase
cultural communication and minimize cross-cultural conflicts? Probably.
The same thing applies to the medical personnel, water sanitation
people, agricultural assistance folks etc.

Does our presence increase the credibility of the invasion with much of
anybody in the region? Debatable. The conventional wisdom among Iraq
war vets was that 25% of the Iraqis had it really good under Saddam and
won't care for Americans no matter what we do. 25% had it really bad
under Saddam and are happy to have anything else. 25% are going to
profiteer from the situation as long as possible. And 25% are just
trying not to get their heads blown off.

If we (anthropologists) decide not to dirty our reputations by being
there will anybody but us care? Debatable.

What is the "right" answer? We will probably never know for sure. But
I really like that the discussion is going on.

BTW: the anthropologists are almost certainly wearing "fatigues" (more
correctly: Desert Combat Uniforms) for the same reason as everyone
else: to keep from being a good target and getting shot!

This op-ed piece reveals exactly what I was afraid of...having
anthropologists allied with the occupying forces (and I object to this
no
matter WHO the occupying forces are) instructing the military leaders
how to
"conduct nonlethal missions." What, exactly, is the purpose for this?
(And
why the hell is an anthropologist wearing military fatigues?) If the
Pentagon were really concerned with cultural relativism (and they're
revealed countless times over the years that they're not), hell, if the
administration in power (and again, WHATEVER administration is in power)

were truly concerned with cultural relativism, they'd have consulted
with
anthropologists to gain a more nuanced view of other societies around
the
world. Their policies would be informed policies, not "go in and bomb
the
hell out of them and impose our governmental practices on them."
I also wonder if the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is really
anti-soldier. I have a sneaking suspicion it's more anti-manipulation of

the anthropological field for colonialist purposes.
FYI -- I watched the PBS show last Tuesday night about the escalation
with
Iran -- and was thoroughly shocked (but not surprised) to hear Richard
Armitage state that the most ethnocentric people in the world live in
Iran...talk about irony.
Monica Bellas
Cerritos College

>Muslim nations in an effort to make the world a safer place?
>
>A few weeks ago this newspaper reported on an experimental Pentagon
>"human terrain" program to embed anthropologists in combat units in

Iraq

>and Afghanistan. It featured two military anthropologists: Tracy (last
>name withheld), a cultural translator viewed by American paratroopers

as

>"a crucial new weapon" in counterinsurgency; and Montgomery McFate, who

>has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to
>convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know

more

>about the local cultural scene.
>
>How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the
>Pentagon's new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of
>Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty
>members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to
>counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in

a

>brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you
>shouldn't support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars
>don't want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or
>pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe

>the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot.
>
>Part of my thinking stems from an interview with Ms. McFate on NPR's
>"Diane Rehm Show" to which I tried to listen with an open mind. My

first

>reaction was to feel let down. It turns out that the anthropologists

are

>not really doing anthropology at all, but are basically hired as
>military tour guides to help counterinsurgency forces accomplish

various

>nonlethal missions.
>
>These anthropological "angels on the shoulder," as Ms. McFate put it,
>offer global positioning advice as soldiers move through poorly
>understood human terrain - telling them when not to cross their legs at

>meetings, how to show respect to leaders, how to arrange a party. They
>use their degrees in cultural anthropology to play the part of Emily
>Post.
>
>More worrisome, it was revealed that Tracy, the mystery anthropologist,

>wears a military uniform and carries a gun during her cultural
>sensitivity missions. This brought to my increasingly skeptical mind

the

>unfortunate image of an angelic anthropologist perched on the shoulder
>of a member of an American counterinsurgency unit who is kicking in the

>door of someone's home in Iraq, while exclaiming, "Hi, we're here from
>the government; we're here to understand you."
>
>Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments,

>sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life

was

>to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense

>of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting
>American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan
>cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on "love
>Thursdays" and do some "hanky-panky." "Stop imposing your values on
>others," was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond
>"don't ask, don't tell," and I found it heartwarming.
>
>I began to imagine an occupying army of moral relativists, enforcing

the

>peace by drawing a lesson from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans lasted

a

>much longer time than the British Empire in part because they had a
>brilliant counterinsurgency strategy. They did not try to impose their
>values on others. Instead, they made room - their famous "millet

system"

>- for cultural pluralism, leaving each ethnic and religious group to
>control its own territory and at liberty to carry forward its
>distinctive way of life.
>
>When the American Anthropological Association holds its annual
>convention in November in Washington, I expect it to become a forum for

>heated expression of political and moral opposition to the war, to the
>Bush administration, to capitalism, to neo-colonialism, and to the
>corrupting influence of the Pentagon and the C.I.A. on professional
>ethics.
>
>Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to support a profession-wide
>military boycott or a public counter-counterinsurgency loyalty oath.

And

>I think it would be unwise for the American Anthropological Association

>to do so at this time.
>
>The real issue for academic anthropologists is not whether the military

>should know more rather than less about other ways of life - of course
>it should know more. The real issue is how our profession is going to
>begin to play a far more significant educational role in the

formulation

>of foreign policy, in the hope that anthropologists won't have to

answer

>some patriotic call late in a sad day to become an armed angel riding
>the shoulder of a misguided American warrior.
>
>Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative

Let me give you an example where a professional with detailed knowledge of the local culture would have been a help, and it s not likely that a before-movement

Message 3 of 16
, Oct 30, 2007

0 Attachment

Let me give you an example where a professional with detailed knowledge
of the local culture would have been a help, and it's not likely that a
before-movement briefing would have included this particular chain of
events.

When it became obvious that there was going to be a ground invasion the
Iraqi Powers That Be showed episodes of Oz to "all" of the Iraqi
soldiers and told them that they would be raped by the American soldiers
who were all homosexuals as could be seen by the fact that the were all
completely clean shaven.

In the northern part or Iraq only gay men have no facial hair at
all. And the soldiers and Marines were under orders to shave completely
because even the authorized mustaches can compromise the skin-seal on a
gas mask and kill you. Remember that everyone had been told to expect
biological and chemical weapons.

Evidently many of the Iraqis in the area bought this and there was a
corresponding resistance and difficulty finding local interpreters etc.
The troops more or less winged it once the situation became known: they
made a point of displaying wedding rings, of showing family pictures at
every opportunity etc. Eventually the locals figured out that the
troops were not able to prevent looting, couldn't keep the power on etc.
But they were not intent on mass gang rape of males. A specialist in
this area might have anticipated this strategy (help me please on this:
I'm a physical anthropologist and no one's idea of a Middle East expert)
and have known a better, faster way to convey heterosexuality, or at
least non-assaultative-ness (is that a word?)

I certainly didn't mean that the soldiers on the ground should read the
anthropological literature themselves. I'm assuming that the military
must have planners (intelligence officers?) already in place whose job
it is to gather information about the places where we send our
personnel. They can research the cultures (and should already be doing
it).

Then the information can be passed down to the field commanders along
with all the other information commanders get. I just don't see how
having an anthropologist on the ground is going to make that much
difference in terms of guiding the behavior of soldiers caught in
dangerous (and sudden) situations. What it might guide is the intentions
of commanders as they make plans. But is that much even happening in the
Human Terrain Project?

Maybe some of what I'm saying is naive. I wouldn't be surprised, but the
truth is, we don't know anything concrete about the real impact of this
project as opposed to its advertised impact and what we are merely
guessing it might accomplish. That makes this conversation really
difficult.

In an ideal world, I would certainly agree that this adventure/disaster
should not have started and nobody should be there.

I do have to ask: A professional anthropologist in the AO (area of
operations) might be able to keep soldiers (with a wide range of
educational backgrounds and not much time to peruse the literature
before going out on patrol) from pissing off people even more. They
might do a better job of introducing things like vaccinations and
pre-natal care. They might even keep some candidates from the
Revitalization Movement Run Amok that motivates suicide
bombers......Isn't protecting lives and enhancing quality of life with
our skills worth risking dirtying our hands ?

The anthropologists in this "human terrain project" (...even the very
title should grate on our professional nerves!) not only wear desert
combat uniforms, but also carry guns. And they are working on a side in
a war. That is the bottom line. If you sign up to be a soldier, there is

no question what your intentions are or whose "side you are on." Many of

our community college students themselves are in this situation, in and
out of service over decades, from on war situation to another. None of
them pretends they are neutral and none of them is without an opinion
about what they do. But also, none of them are part of a profession that

has at its foundation a set of principles on which they need to build
the trust and respect of any people with whom they work.

As you will note in all of my own comments on this situation, I am not
personally or professionally arguing for or against the merits of this
and other wars as the basis for which anthropologists should or should
not participate in any given project. I am making the point that taking
the side in any such state-run military agenda is itself a formula for
undermining the principles on which our discipline relies for its
integrity and meaning. And it is amazing in the process to see how
easily we can be drawn into the rationalization of such participation.

I don't really think it is an apt argument that anthropologists help
"our soldiers" become more "culturally sensitive," or that
anthropologists might somehow make what you call "this mess" in Iraq (or

anywhere else) "a little better." It is, as I have suggested before,
"warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology!" And
I hardly think that we in the discipline should settle for such
accomodation or rationalization.

I've been watching the arguments about anthropologists being attached to

military units with VERY mixed feelings.

Full disclosure: My husband is a disabled Iraq war vet. He enlisted
prior to 9/11 of his own free will and swore "to defend the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Not a word about
making the world safe for Haliburton.

He and the other ground pounders enlisted with the expectation that
they would be called on to defend those who cannot defend themselves:
prevent massacres in Bosnia, keep a lid on Kim Jong Il etc.

It took them less than a month to realize that the invasion of
Afghanistan was a mis-managed screw-up (They have more colorful terms,
let me assure you). It took even less time to realize that the
"mission" in Iraq was completely bogus and that the best they could hope

for was to survive and get out.

The ground troops remain and try to keep one another alive. Those that
are well-led also try to protect the Iraqis in their areas that are not
involved in the civil war that has developed. Those that have
incompetent/dishonest NCOs and officers sometimes do things that range
from culturally insensitive to homicidal and are a disgrace to their
services and their country.

Would it have been better if the US had not gone into Iraq? Almost
certainly. Now that the mess exists can things be made at least a
little better by having anthropologists around to try to increase
cultural communication and minimize cross-cultural conflicts? Probably.
The same thing applies to the medical personnel, water sanitation
people, agricultural assistance folks etc.

Does our presence increase the credibility of the invasion with much of
anybody in the region? Debatable. The conventional wisdom among Iraq
war vets was that 25% of the Iraqis had it really good under Saddam and
won't care for Americans no matter what we do. 25% had it really bad
under Saddam and are happy to have anything else. 25% are going to
profiteer from the situation as long as possible. And 25% are just
trying not to get their heads blown off.

If we (anthropologists) decide not to dirty our reputations by being
there will anybody but us care? Debatable.

What is the "right" answer? We will probably never know for sure. But
I really like that the discussion is going on.

BTW: the anthropologists are almost certainly wearing "fatigues" (more
correctly: Desert Combat Uniforms) for the same reason as everyone
else: to keep from being a good target and getting shot!

This op-ed piece reveals exactly what I was afraid of...having
anthropologists allied with the occupying forces (and I object to this
no
matter WHO the occupying forces are) instructing the military leaders
how to
"conduct nonlethal missions." What, exactly, is the purpose for this?
(And
why the hell is an anthropologist wearing military fatigues?) If the
Pentagon were really concerned with cultural relativism (and they're
revealed countless times over the years that they're not), hell, if the
administration in power (and again, WHATEVER administration is in power)

were truly concerned with cultural relativism, they'd have consulted
with
anthropologists to gain a more nuanced view of other societies around
the
world. Their policies would be informed policies, not "go in and bomb
the
hell out of them and impose our governmental practices on them."
I also wonder if the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is really
anti-soldier. I have a sneaking suspicion it's more anti-manipulation of

the anthropological field for colonialist purposes.
FYI -- I watched the PBS show last Tuesday night about the escalation
with
Iran -- and was thoroughly shocked (but not surprised) to hear Richard
Armitage state that the most ethnocentric people in the world live in
Iran...talk about irony.
Monica Bellas
Cerritos College

>Muslim nations in an effort to make the world a safer place?
>
>A few weeks ago this newspaper reported on an experimental Pentagon
>"human terrain" program to embed anthropologists in combat units in

Iraq

>and Afghanistan. It featured two military anthropologists: Tracy (last
>name withheld), a cultural translator viewed by American paratroopers

as

>"a crucial new weapon" in counterinsurgency; and Montgomery McFate, who

>has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to
>convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know

more

>about the local cultural scene.
>
>How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the
>Pentagon's new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of
>Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty
>members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to
>counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in

a

>brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you
>shouldn't support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars
>don't want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or
>pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe

>the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot.
>
>Part of my thinking stems from an interview with Ms. McFate on NPR's
>"Diane Rehm Show" to which I tried to listen with an open mind. My

first

>reaction was to feel let down. It turns out that the anthropologists

are

>not really doing anthropology at all, but are basically hired as
>military tour guides to help counterinsurgency forces accomplish

various

>nonlethal missions.
>
>These anthropological "angels on the shoulder," as Ms. McFate put it,
>offer global positioning advice as soldiers move through poorly
>understood human terrain - telling them when not to cross their legs at

>meetings, how to show respect to leaders, how to arrange a party. They
>use their degrees in cultural anthropology to play the part of Emily
>Post.
>
>More worrisome, it was revealed that Tracy, the mystery anthropologist,

>wears a military uniform and carries a gun during her cultural
>sensitivity missions. This brought to my increasingly skeptical mind

the

>unfortunate image of an angelic anthropologist perched on the shoulder
>of a member of an American counterinsurgency unit who is kicking in the

>door of someone's home in Iraq, while exclaiming, "Hi, we're here from
>the government; we're here to understand you."
>
>Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments,

>sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life

was

>to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense

>of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting
>American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan
>cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on "love
>Thursdays" and do some "hanky-panky." "Stop imposing your values on
>others," was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond
>"don't ask, don't tell," and I found it heartwarming.
>
>I began to imagine an occupying army of moral relativists, enforcing

the

>peace by drawing a lesson from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans lasted

a

>much longer time than the British Empire in part because they had a
>brilliant counterinsurgency strategy. They did not try to impose their
>values on others. Instead, they made room - their famous "millet

system"

>- for cultural pluralism, leaving each ethnic and religious group to
>control its own territory and at liberty to carry forward its
>distinctive way of life.
>
>When the American Anthropological Association holds its annual
>convention in November in Washington, I expect it to become a forum for

>heated expression of political and moral opposition to the war, to the
>Bush administration, to capitalism, to neo-colonialism, and to the
>corrupting influence of the Pentagon and the C.I.A. on professional
>ethics.
>
>Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to support a profession-wide
>military boycott or a public counter-counterinsurgency loyalty oath.

And

>I think it would be unwise for the American Anthropological Association

>to do so at this time.
>
>The real issue for academic anthropologists is not whether the military

>should know more rather than less about other ways of life - of course
>it should know more. The real issue is how our profession is going to
>begin to play a far more significant educational role in the

formulation

>of foreign policy, in the hope that anthropologists won't have to

answer

>some patriotic call late in a sad day to become an armed angel riding
>the shoulder of a misguided American warrior.
>
>Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The sender of this email is different from the email address shown

in the headers. The real sender of this message is:
sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch=qvcc.commnet.edu@...
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yah>
oo.com
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return

s.groups.yahoo.com>

If you want to permanently block the sender of this email, you would
need to add
sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch=qvcc.commnet.edu@...
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return
s.groups.yah>
oo.com
<mailto:sentto-126016-4126-1193688041-blynch%3Dqvcc.commnet.edu%40return

Brian, What I am suggesting is that when I do use the anthropological perspective now, I see false dichotomies and superficial dualities in good vs. evil

Message 4 of 16
, Oct 31, 2007

0 Attachment

Brian,
What I am suggesting is that when I do use the "anthropological perspective" now, I see false dichotomies and superficial dualities in 'good vs. evil' doctrines by either the Muslim Taliban or the American Taliban leading to Crusader-invasions (these are not wars) true. But I also see dangerous dichotomies and dualities in our thinking when we see "good" academics pretending that we are separating ourselves from the corporate context that drives our government and globalism and military contracts when we are in fact part of the enterprise just in more hidden subtle ways. We are 'embedded' in our political economy and are turning a blind eye to corporate colleges that we work for every day that are party to the system as are we. So, not wearing a uniform does not make us "good" and abstracted from involvement. What we do need is more engagement in these discussions and transparency encouraged by our profession. Then we can help each other make better case by case ethical decisions.

Mark,
So we either support anthropological participation with state sponsored warmaking, or we are abstracted professionals maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity while the world turns. This is how 21st century anthropology rationalizes its contemporary co-opting by dominant political forces, under the banner of postmodern "action" ?

"The emporer has no clothes." This is warmaking. It is a warmaking agenda in which anthropologists have rationalized their participation (desert fatigues, guns and all). It turns the values of "cultural sensitivity" into a suite of weapons of war. It is "warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology."

As Ann Popplestone shared her experiential context of her husband having
served and being injured requiring serious surgery, I also have altered
my views having dealt with a close friend returning from combat, wounded
and sharing his experiences. We all have perspectives that are
constructed by our social experience and we are not just some kind of
abstracted professional maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity
while the world turns. I thought that we were indeed in a postmodern
world with a profession, anthropology, that realizes that engaging in
embedded fieldwork requires a complex strategic plan of ACTION that
limits our impact but never pretends that we are not involved in a
living, changing community. Do you really think that an anthropologist
embedded in fieldwork within a Nazi or Khmer Rouge dominated community
could avoid making choices to help save lives and limbs?? Do we simply
ignore doing fieldwork in areas under conflict because we would "get our
ethical hands dirty"? (which is obviously what Ann meant) I quit a
consultant firm during Viet Nam because we were asked to set up a Race
Relations program for the Defense Department, which my partners
eventually did. Instead, I took a job at a community college. Believe
me, the state of Ohio contract that I work under does more ethical harm
to my professional soul than Admiral Zumwalt's excellent Race Relations
program. Was I right to not work to make soldiers less racist and thus
more efficient killers? (my reasoning at the time) I now do not think
so.

Such anthropologists are engaged not simply in "dirtying their hands"
while doing good things in a culturally informed way; they are serving
the strategies, tactics and ultimate goals of a side in a war. They are
helping to fight a war. They aren't with a group of blue-helmeted
peacekeepers, but with "our side" that is ultimately aiming to win over
"their side." This is the fundamental issue that makes them partisan and
mercenary; their cultural sensitivity and subsequent ability to "lighten
things up" (to make the war campaigns a little more culturally
sensitive?) makes them no less so. In fact it makes the discipline
itself sound fundamentally naive, at best, and duplicitous at worst, if
we suggest that we are simply just "getting our hands a little dirty"
while making peace somehow. Instead we are abandoning our integrity as a
discipline, while making war.

In an ideal world, I would certainly agree that this adventure/disaster
should not have started and nobody should be there.

I do have to ask: A professional anthropologist in the AO (area of
operations) might be able to keep soldiers (with a wide range of
educational backgrounds and not much time to peruse the literature
before going out on patrol) from pissing off people even more. They
might do a better job of introducing things like vaccinations and
pre-natal care. They might even keep some candidates from the
Revitalization Movement Run Amok that motivates suicide
bombers......Isn't protecting lives and enhancing quality of life with
our skills worth risking dirtying our hands ?

The anthropologists in this "human terrain project" (...even the very
title should grate on our professional nerves!) not only wear desert
combat uniforms, but also carry guns. And they are working on a side in
a war. That is the bottom line. If you sign up to be a soldier, there is
no question what your intentions are or whose "side you are on." Many of
our community college students themselves are in this situation, in and
out of service over decades, from on war situation to another. None of
them pretends they are neutral and none of them is without an opinion
about what they do. But also, none of them are part of a profession that
has at its foundation a set of principles on which they need to build
the trust and respect of any people with whom they work.

As you will note in all of my own comments on this situation, I am not
personally or professionally arguing for or against the merits of this
and other wars as the basis for which anthropologists should or should
not participate in any given project. I am making the point that taking
the side in any such state-run military agenda is itself a formula for
undermining the principles on which our discipline relies for its
integrity and meaning. And it is amazing in the process to see how
easily we can be drawn into the rationalization of such participation.

I don't really think it is an apt argument that anthropologists help
"our soldiers" become more "culturally sensitive," or that
anthropologists might somehow make what you call "this mess" in Iraq (or
anywhere else) "a little better." It is, as I have suggested before,
"warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology!" And
I hardly think that we in the discipline should settle for such
accomodation or rationalization.

I've been watching the arguments about anthropologists being attached to
military units with VERY mixed feelings.

Full disclosure: My husband is a disabled Iraq war vet. He enlisted
prior to 9/11 of his own free will and swore "to defend the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Not a word about
making the world safe for Haliburton.

He and the other ground pounders enlisted with the expectation that
they would be called on to defend those who cannot defend themselves:
prevent massacres in Bosnia, keep a lid on Kim Jong Il etc.

It took them less than a month to realize that the invasion of
Afghanistan was a mis-managed screw-up (They have more colorful terms,
let me assure you). It took even less time to realize that the
"mission" in Iraq was completely bogus and that the best they could hope
for was to survive and get out.

The ground troops remain and try to keep one another alive. Those that
are well-led also try to protect the Iraqis in their areas that are not
involved in the civil war that has developed. Those that have
incompetent/dishonest NCOs and officers sometimes do things that range
from culturally insensitive to homicidal and are a disgrace to their
services and their country.

Would it have been better if the US had not gone into Iraq? Almost
certainly. Now that the mess exists can things be made at least a
little better by having anthropologists around to try to increase
cultural communication and minimize cross-cultural conflicts? Probably.
The same thing applies to the medical personnel, water sanitation
people, agricultural assistance folks etc.

Does our presence increase the credibility of the invasion with much of
anybody in the region? Debatable. The conventional wisdom among Iraq
war vets was that 25% of the Iraqis had it really good under Saddam and
won't care for Americans no matter what we do. 25% had it really bad
under Saddam and are happy to have anything else. 25% are going to
profiteer from the situation as long as possible. And 25% are just
trying not to get their heads blown off.

If we (anthropologists) decide not to dirty our reputations by being
there will anybody but us care? Debatable.

What is the "right" answer? We will probably never know for sure. But
I really like that the discussion is going on.

BTW: the anthropologists are almost certainly wearing "fatigues" (more
correctly: Desert Combat Uniforms) for the same reason as everyone
else: to keep from being a good target and getting shot!

This op-ed piece reveals exactly what I was afraid of...having
anthropologists allied with the occupying forces (and I object to this
no
matter WHO the occupying forces are) instructing the military leaders
how to
"conduct nonlethal missions." What, exactly, is the purpose for this?
(And
why the hell is an anthropologist wearing military fatigues?) If the
Pentagon were really concerned with cultural relativism (and they're
revealed countless times over the years that they're not), hell, if the
administration in power (and again, WHATEVER administration is in power)

were truly concerned with cultural relativism, they'd have consulted
with
anthropologists to gain a more nuanced view of other societies around
the
world. Their policies would be informed policies, not "go in and bomb
the
hell out of them and impose our governmental practices on them."
I also wonder if the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is really
anti-soldier. I have a sneaking suspicion it's more anti-manipulation of

the anthropological field for colonialist purposes.
FYI -- I watched the PBS show last Tuesday night about the escalation
with
Iran -- and was thoroughly shocked (but not surprised) to hear Richard
Armitage state that the most ethnocentric people in the world live in
Iran...talk about irony.
Monica Bellas
Cerritos College

>has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to
>convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know
more
>about the local cultural scene.
>
>How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the
>Pentagon's new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of
>Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty
>members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to
>counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in
a
>brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you
>shouldn't support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars
>don't want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or
>pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe

>the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot.
>
>Part of my thinking stems from an interview with Ms. McFate on NPR's
>"Diane Rehm Show" to which I tried to listen with an open mind. My
first
>reaction was to feel let down. It turns out that the anthropologists
are
>not really doing anthropology at all, but are basically hired as
>military tour guides to help counterinsurgency forces accomplish
various
>nonlethal missions.
>
>These anthropological "angels on the shoulder," as Ms. McFate put it,
>offer global positioning advice as soldiers move through poorly
>understood human terrain - telling them when not to cross their legs at

>meetings, how to show respect to leaders, how to arrange a party. They
>use their degrees in cultural anthropology to play the part of Emily
>Post.
>
>More worrisome, it was revealed that Tracy, the mystery anthropologist,

>wears a military uniform and carries a gun during her cultural
>sensitivity missions. This brought to my increasingly skeptical mind
the
>unfortunate image of an angelic anthropologist perched on the shoulder
>of a member of an American counterinsurgency unit who is kicking in the

>door of someone's home in Iraq, while exclaiming, "Hi, we're here from
>the government; we're here to understand you."
>
>Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments,

>sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life
was
>to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense

>of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting
>American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan
>cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on "love
>Thursdays" and do some "hanky-panky." "Stop imposing your values on
>others," was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond
>"don't ask, don't tell," and I found it heartwarming.
>
>I began to imagine an occupying army of moral relativists, enforcing
the
>peace by drawing a lesson from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans lasted
a
>much longer time than the British Empire in part because they had a
>brilliant counterinsurgency strategy. They did not try to impose their
>values on others. Instead, they made room - their famous "millet
system"
>- for cultural pluralism, leaving each ethnic and religious group to
>control its own territory and at liberty to carry forward its
>distinctive way of life.
>
>When the American Anthropological Association holds its annual
>convention in November in Washington, I expect it to become a forum for

>heated expression of political and moral opposition to the war, to the
>Bush administration, to capitalism, to neo-colonialism, and to the
>corrupting influence of the Pentagon and the C.I.A. on professional
>ethics.
>
>Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to support a profession-wide
>military boycott or a public counter-counterinsurgency loyalty oath.
And
>I think it would be unwise for the American Anthropological Association

>to do so at this time.
>
>The real issue for academic anthropologists is not whether the military

>should know more rather than less about other ways of life - of course
>it should know more. The real issue is how our profession is going to
>begin to play a far more significant educational role in the
formulation
>of foreign policy, in the hope that anthropologists won't have to
answer
>some patriotic call late in a sad day to become an armed angel riding
>the shoulder of a misguided American warrior.
>
>Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative
human
>development at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Thinking
>Through Cultures."
>
>
>
>
>
>Ann Popplestone AAB, BA, MA
>
>CCC Metro TLC
>
>
>
>216-987-3584
>
>FAX:330-867-6375
>
>
>

Mark, It sounds like: Ah! We re all sullied by the threads that tie us to the system, so what difference does it make if we plant ourselves in one spot or

Message 5 of 16
, Oct 31, 2007

0 Attachment

Mark,

It sounds like: "Ah! We're all sullied by the threads that tie us to the
system, so what difference does it make if we plant ourselves in one
spot or another?" The ultimate in postmodern relativity. I hear
Blackwater might be looking for cultural sensitivity training. Who's to
say it wouldn't be an effective place for anthropologists? Then there
is "Plan Colombia" where we use a mercenary army to "eradicate" coca
fields in Colombia (along with food crops, and health-challenged people
who can't tolerate a dose of RoundUP). I am sure that the CIA could
use a few good anthropological minds to help psych out (or anthro-out)
the "detainees" in Guantanamo, to keep them from committing suicide;
that might be a good way to offer some help, to make their stay a little
less unpleasant. We all have dirty hands, so its all relative, right?

It is amazing to me that in the 21st century we as a discipline could
have reached the point of such an accommodation with state sponsored war
making.

And to think that some of my SACC colleagues got a bit unsettled that as
an anthropologist I have been engaged in professional Learning Outcomes
Assessment.

Brian,
What I am suggesting is that when I do use the "anthropological
perspective" now, I see false dichotomies and superficial dualities in
'good vs. evil' doctrines by either the Muslim Taliban or the American
Taliban leading to Crusader-invasions (these are not wars) true. But I
also see dangerous dichotomies and dualities in our thinking when we see
"good" academics pretending that we are separating ourselves from the
corporate context that drives our government and globalism and military
contracts when we are in fact part of the enterprise just in more hidden
subtle ways. We are 'embedded' in our political economy and are turning
a blind eye to corporate colleges that we work for every day that are
party to the system as are we. So, not wearing a uniform does not make
us "good" and abstracted from involvement. What we do need is more
engagement in these discussions and transparency encouraged by our
profession. Then we can help each other make! better case by case
ethical decisions.

Mark,
So we either support anthropological participation with state sponsored
warmaking, or we are abstracted professionals maintaining a false sense
of aloof objectivity while the world turns. This is how 21st century
anthropology rationalizes its contemporary co-opting by dominant
political forces, under the banner of postmodern "action" ?

"The emporer has no clothes." This is warmaking. It is a warmaking
agenda in which anthropologists have rationalized their participation
(desert fatigues, guns and all). It turns the values of "cultural
sensitivity" into a suite of weapons of war. It is "warfare lite,
brought to you through the wonders of anthropology."

As Ann Popplestone shared her experiential context of her husband having
served and being injured requiring serious surgery, I also have altered
my views having dealt with a close friend returning from combat, wounded
and sharing his experiences. We all have perspectives that are
constructed by our social experience and we are not just some kind of
abstracted professional maintaining a false sense of aloof objectivity
while the world turns. I thought that we were indeed in a postmodern
world with a profession, anthropology, that realizes that engaging in
embedded fieldwork requires a complex strategic plan of ACTION that
limits our impact but never pretends that we are not involved in a
living, changing community. Do you really think that an anthropologist
embedded in fieldwork within a Nazi or Khmer Rouge dominated community
could avoid making choices to help save lives and limbs?? Do we simply
ignore doing fieldwork in areas under conflict because we would "get our
ethical hands dirty"? (which is obviously what Ann meant) I quit a
consultant firm during Viet Nam because we were asked to set up a Race
Relations program for the Defense Department, which my partners
eventually did. Instead, I took a job at a community college. Believe
me, the state of Ohio contract that I work under does more ethical harm
to my professional soul than Admiral Zumwalt's excellent Race Relations
program. Was I right to not work to make soldiers less racist and thus
more efficient killers? (my reasoning at the time) I now do not think
so.

Such anthropologists are engaged not simply in "dirtying their hands"
while doing good things in a culturally informed way; they are serving
the strategies, tactics and ultimate goals of a side in a war. They are
helping to fight a war. They aren't with a group of blue-helmeted
peacekeepers, but with "our side" that is ultimately aiming to win over
"their side." This is the fundamental issue that makes them partisan and
mercenary; their cultural sensitivity and subsequent ability to "lighten
things up" (to make the war campaigns a little more culturally
sensitive?) makes them no less so. In fact it makes the discipline
itself sound fundamentally naive, at best, and duplicitous at worst, if
we suggest that we are simply just "getting our hands a little dirty"
while making peace somehow. Instead we are abandoning our integrity as a
discipline, while making war.

In an ideal world, I would certainly agree that this adventure/disaster
should not have started and nobody should be there.

I do have to ask: A professional anthropologist in the AO (area of
operations) might be able to keep soldiers (with a wide range of
educational backgrounds and not much time to peruse the literature
before going out on patrol) from pissing off people even more. They
might do a better job of introducing things like vaccinations and
pre-natal care. They might even keep some candidates from the
Revitalization Movement Run Amok that motivates suicide
bombers......Isn't protecting lives and enhancing quality of life with
our skills worth risking dirtying our hands ?

The anthropologists in this "human terrain project" (...even the very
title should grate on our professional nerves!) not only wear desert
combat uniforms, but also carry guns. And they are working on a side in
a war. That is the bottom line. If you sign up to be a soldier, there is
no question what your intentions are or whose "side you are on." Many of
our community college students themselves are in this situation, in and
out of service over decades, from on war situation to another. None of
them pretends they are neutral and none of them is without an opinion
about what they do. But also, none of them are part of a profession that
has at its foundation a set of principles on which they need to build
the trust and respect of any people with whom they work.

As you will note in all of my own comments on this situation, I am not
personally or professionally arguing for or against the merits of this
and other wars as the basis for which anthropologists should or should
not participate in any given project. I am making the point that taking
the side in any such state-run military agenda is itself a formula for
undermining the principles on which our discipline relies for its
integrity and meaning. And it is amazing in the process to see how
easily we can be drawn into the rationalization of such participation.

I don't really think it is an apt argument that anthropologists help
"our soldiers" become more "culturally sensitive," or that
anthropologists might somehow make what you call "this mess" in Iraq (or
anywhere else) "a little better." It is, as I have suggested before,
"warfare lite, brought to you through the wonders of anthropology!" And
I hardly think that we in the discipline should settle for such
accomodation or rationalization.

Brian

________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.